A number of authors have recently discussed the possible role entanglement in homeopathy. Walach et al have published a homeopathic proving which they interpreted as demonstrating entanglement between placebo and verum groups in a proving. The lack of a ‘run-in’ period was a weakness of this trial. We present further results of our proving of Belladonna which show that subjects who reported symptoms during the placebo run-in period (‘presentiment provers’) were more likely to report symptoms during the treatment period. This data suggests and the observations of Walach et al may be explicable by conventional mechanisms including differential reporting and constitutional type